Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political issues and aristotle politics
Aristotle's politics essay
Political issues and aristotle politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Aristotle’s Politics - The Good Man Should Not Rule the City
Aristotle contends that the good man is dissimilar to the good citizen in ways he goes a great length to illustrate. He distinguishes the two for the purpose of facilitating his later arguments concerning the appropriate allocation of sovereignty to the rightful ruler, who he subsequently claims is the good man who excels all others in each and every aspect. Aristotle's distinction further prompts the notion that he advocates a monarchial form of constitution, for the rule of a single good man is equivalent to a constitution of kingship. This can be derived through the following reasoning. Aristotle is convinced that the good citizen can so be defined only in relation to the constitution he is an element of: 'The excellence of the citizen must be an excellence relative to the constitution (1276b16).' The good man on the other hand, 'is a man so called in virtue of a single absolute excellence (1276b16).' He further asserts that the good citizen 'must possess the knowledge and capacity requisite for ruling as well as for being ruledÖa good man will also need both (1277b7~1277b16).' From these conclusions of Aristotle, it is evident that the good man and the good citizen differ in the manner of their excellence, but not in their capacity for ruling or being ruled. It should therefore follow that there should not exist impediments to the ruling by the good citizen in the city as opposed to the ruling by the good man due to the fact that they are identical in their competence to rule. However, Aristotle in his later arguments, crowns the good man as ruler: 'in the best constitutionÖthere is someone of outstanding excellence. What is to be done in that case? Nobody wou...
... middle of paper ...
...scussed). The justification of the good man in becoming the supreme educator can be made in the following way. Since all absolutely excellent men (good men) arrive at their excellence through the process of education, that is, they are not innately excellent, their efforts should be directed toward the emulation of their excellence in the children of the city, for they are the ones who know best the process of becoming excellent. In this manner of education, the children (being future citizens) will grow up to become good men and good citizens, and thus the future city will comprise of many potential rulers. The good man through education, will contribute towards the ruling of the city indirectly in such an instance, and not directly as Aristotle claims he should do.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. Gerald F. Else. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1990.
Edmund Burke was an Irish political theorist and a philosopher who became a leading figure within the conservative party. Burke has now been perceived as the founder of modern conservatism. He was asked upon to write a piece of literature on the French Revolution. It was assumed that as an Englishman, Burke’s words would be positive and supportive. Given that he was a member of the Whig party, and that he supported the Glorious Revolution in England. Contrary to what was presumed of him, Burke was very critical of the French Revolution. He frequently stated that a fast change in society is bad. He believed that if any change to society should occur, it should be very slow and gradual.
Through the use of numerous symbols, Nathanial Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter serves as an allegory for the story of Adam and Eve and its relation to sin, knowledge, and the human condition that is present in human society. Curious for the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, which resulted in the revelation of their “humanness” and expulsion from the “divine garden” as they then suffered the pain and joy of being humans. Just as Adam and Eve were expelled from their society and suffered in their own being, so were Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter. Hester was out casted and shunned, while Dimmesdale suffered under his own guilt. After knowledge of her affair is made known, Hester is forced to wear a scarlet letter “A” on her chest to symbolize her crime of adultery, and is separated from the Puritan society. Another “A” appears in the story, and is not embroidered, but instead scarred on Dimmesdale’s chest as a symbol of guilt and suffering. Hester’s symbol of guilt comes in the form of her daughter, Pearl, who is the manifestation of her adultery, and also the living version of her scarlet letter. Each of these symbols come together to represent that with sin comes personal growth and advancement of oneself in society as the sinner endures the good and bad consequences.
During the teenage years they no longer want to be labeled the “child; matter of fact, they have a strong desire to rebel against the family norms and move quickly into adulthood. This transition and want for freedom can be a very powerful and frightening thing as there are evils in this world that cannot be explained. Most parents try to understand and give their teens certain freedoms, but at what expense? Joyce Oates gives us a chilly story about a teenager that wanted and craved this freedom of adulthood called “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”. This is a haunting story of a young girl by the name of Connie who gives us a glimpse of teenager transitioning from childhood with the need for freedom and the consequences of her actions. Connie is described as a very attractive girl who did not like her role in the family unit. She was the daughter who could not compare to her older sister and she felt her Mom showed favoritism towards her sister. Connie is your average teen who loves music, going out with friends, and she likes the attention she receives from boys. During this time, Connie is also growing into her sexuality and is obsessing with her looks as she wants and likes to be noticed by the opposite sex. Her sexual persona and need to be free will be what is fatal to her character’s life and well-being.
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
Aristotle would have the state follow the rule of the people and the rule of the majority through his democracy. He states that each member of this democracy has a share of goodness and intelligence that makes the jus...
As I read Aristotle’s book "Nicomachean ethics," I analyzed and comprehend his thoughts on all ten books. I came to realization that Aristotle thoughts throughout the book are difficult to express and clearly comprehend. But though it was difficult to breakdown, I could clearly see that it was written to determine what a human being is as a whole.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”(Romans 3:23). Since the beginning of time guilt has existed, and in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter, guilt illustrates itself through adultery involving Hester Prynne and Reverend Dimmesdale. Hester and Dimmesdale resided in New England during The Puritan Age and committed adultery while Hester’s husband was out of town. Hester’s sin did not go unnoticed, as her baby illuminated the situation. While Hester’s mister hid in the shadows, she was branded with a scarlet letter A for adultery as punishment for her sin. The scarlet letter was more than a piece of cloth over her chest; it was reminder to everyone around about Mrs. Prynne’s actions. Hawthorne uses biblical and spiritual allusions to argue that guilt causes individuals to change their lifestyles.
U T I L I T A R I A N I S M. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism%20notes.htm
...quals for political rule, the theoretical possibility of absolute rule becomes a crucial part of it. This causes difficulties because if Aristotle values citizenship and political participation as vital for attaining eudaimonia, then the possibility of absolute rule is clearly inconsistent with his standard of justice as virtuous and capable citizens would have to give up their citizenship. Conversely, Aristotle would argue that surrendering citizenships can be done without loss of virtue or eudaimonia as both types of rule are equally just. Fundamentally, both provide outstanding virtuosity, ability and rule in the interest of all which is crucial for obtaining a good government and eudaimon life. Thus, even in the most just state, the value of political participation is such that it should be accepted when offered although it is not essential for the eudaimon life
This view is called contractarianism. To have value there are rules and stipulations that individuals must agree and abide by, like signing a contract, only “those who understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly”(Regan, 16). Those who are covered directly have rights that are recognized and protected in the contract. Those who sign can also sign for others that “lack the ability to understand morality and so cannot sign the contract themselves”, but are “loved or cherished by those who can”(Regan, 16). These secondary contractors are only recognized and protected in the contract because they are of sentimental value to others. These secondary contractors would include pets and children. While these secondary contractors lack rights themselves, they are protected because they are interests of the primary contractors that do have rights. The example Regan uses to illustrate this is if someone were to kick your dog, they would be morally wrong, not because they hurt the dog, but because they kicked your property and it would upset you; the wrong is not done to the dog fore it has no moral standing, but the wrong is done to you because you have moral value. The problem with contractarianism is that moral value applies to only animals that have value to someone else. Other animals with little or no sentimental value to others, like farm animals and lab rats, have no moral rights because no one cares about
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses the principles of virtue, choices and a desire for an end. In the 5th chapter of book 3, Aristotle gives a possible argument of someone who objects to his beliefs “But someone might argue as follows: ‘All Men seek what appears good to them, but they have no control over how things appear to them; the end appears different to different men” (1114b). Based on the objector’s generalization, he or she believes that all men strive to find the ultimate good, but they don't have the freedom or the wisdom to see things for what they truly are.
...Aristotle’s conclusion relates human good, activity of soul and excellence. It is this expression of virtue through action that allows happiness to be obtained. Such dependence on virtue sets the scene for Aristotle to examine virtue more closely. He will elaborate on the two parts of reasoning well (virtue). The first part of reasoning well is having the right desires to aim oneself at the right good and not just the apparent good. The second part of reasoning well is knowing how to get to this proper desire. This will be further elaborated in book two where Aristotle will explore what it means to reason well and what is means to be virtuous.
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.